Transport and Public Works

Helen Bowden

1. The date of determination of the use of this site for mixed housing.

1. While it is difficult to provide a definitive answer to Member Dugmore on this question due to the ambiguity inherent in the definition of the word “determine” within the administrative context, I can confirm that the records show that the Western Cape Government has been committed to developing the Helen Bowden site as part of a greater Somerset Precinct Redevelopment for many years now. I can also advise that at least three material dates with respect to “determinations” have been made public regarding the most recently proposed development of the Helen Bowden site for, inter alia, affordable social housing. These are the following:

1. 1. A rezoning, subdivision and consolidation application pertaining to a proposed mixed-use development of, inter alia, the Helen Bowden site was submitted to the City of Cape Town by the Western Cape Government in September 2016 and included a GB6 – General Business (mixed-use development excluding industrial use) application for this site. The content of that application was made public via the public consultation process that was initiated subsequent to submission and prior to the application being determined by the City’s planning tribunal.

1. 2. On 22 March 2017, the Western Cape Provincial Cabinet, as part of its deliberations and reasoning with respect to the sale of the Tafelberg School site to the Phyllis Jowell Trust, determined that any Request for Proposals to be published in due course with respect of the redevelopment of this site must: “contain within it a requirement for the maximum quantum of affordable housing as will make the development of the site viable.”  Those deliberations and the reasoning for the Cabinet’s decision on the Tafelberg sale were made public, both in terms of media releases at the time and as part of the record in the litigation process that was initiated by Ndifuna Ukwazi thereafter.

1. 3. On 4 September 2018 the City’s Planning Tribunal approved the rezoning, subdivision and consolidation application, with specific conditions pertaining to a high percentage of affordable social housing units across the entire Precinct, as determined by a Feasibility Study and Business Plan to be prepared in due course. 
2. Sadly, as Member Dugmore knows, on or about the 27 of March 2017, and heeding a public call made by the movement known as Reclaim the City, to: “embark on a symbolic occupation of the Helen Bowden Nurses Home and the Woodstock Hospital”, the Helen Bowden building was unlawfully invaded.
3. Ironically as part of the demands made by this group the Western Cape Government was asked to “Immediately announce plans and timelines for affordable housing on Helen Bowden, Woodstock Hospital and other well-located public land”.  In that same year our plans for this site were made public via, inter alia, the City’s planning approval process and Cabinet’s decision referred to above; yet despite their demand having been met and these decisions having now cleared the way for the development of social housing on the Helen Bowden site to proceed, neither Reclaim the City nor Ndifuna Ukwazi have made a similar public call on the current occupants to vacate the premises so as to enable such development to start.
4. We now face a situation where the very purpose for which RTC encouraged vulnerable persons to act in flagrant breach of the law and occupy this site- i.e. to increase and expedite government’s social housing development - is being nullified at this site by the continued occupation thereof. I thus hope that Member Dugmore will now assist in doing whatever he can to ensure a speedy voluntary vacation of the building, post the Covid Pandemic disaster.

2. Steps take to negotiate with the occupants of Helen Bowden to date.

5. Provincial Transport and Public Works is the designated custodian of the property in question and it is thus appropriate that engagements with the occupants of the property are conducted by either officials from the custodian department or by me, as the responsible member of the Provincial Cabinet.
6. Various engagements with the occupants have taken place to date by both our Head of Department and me, in person, and in writing, including what is probably the most extensive correspondence from us to date which was sent to each occupant in March 2018 when the WCG initiated its first process of engagement with the occupiers through correspondence sent to them from the Head of Department in English, Afrikaans and isiXhosa. In that letter we advised:
   1. That the occupiers are in unlawful occupation of the property in that they occupy it without the consent of the WCG and in the absence of any other right in law to do so;
   2. That the occupation:

1. is unlawful;
2. has been orchestrated with the clear intent of securing an advantage in relation to future litigation or housing developments that may occur within the inner City or Sea Point and its surrounds;
3. has resulted in vandalism and destruction of property in the form of  inter alia broken water pipes, fire hydrants, electricity cables and connections;
4. has resulted in blocked, overflowing and open sewerage concerns being raised by surrounding land owners as well as the nearby health facilities.
   3. That violent outbreaks of a physical and very serious nature have taken place from time to time when attempts have been made to halt unlawful occupations and/or fights and theft. This has necessitated the appointment of contracted security service providers in order to try to secure the remaining infrastructure on the property and to prevent further damage occasioned by the illegal occupation thereof at substantial cost. The security is necessary to protect the building from wholescale invasions, vandalism and theft.
   4. That the WCG requires vacant occupation of the property, which forms part of a development proposal by the WCG known as the Somerset Precinct Regeneration and requested the occupants to complete and return a questionnaire pertaining to their personal details and circumstances.

7. Initially, the schedule of response attached to the engagement letter was completed and returned by only six of the occupants, but on 22 June 2018 the WCG received a response from RTC “on behalf of individual Occupiers, supporters and the Co-ordinating Committee of RTC” in terms of which it refused to admit all the allegations in our letter. It also required clarity on what other alternative accommodation could be provided to those who would be rendered homeless should they vacate the premises. The response also took issue with not having access to water or electricity and claimed that the toilets are hard to flush but advised they were willing to discuss their expectations in this regard.
8. The Head of Department responded in writing to RTC’s letter on 26 June 2018 and  various written correspondences thereafter ensued between RTC and our officials dealing with, inter alia, their demands for engagement from us on the provision of alternative accommodation that may arise as a result of any vacation or eviction of the occupiers from our property for the purposes of developing same. 
9. In addition to these written engagements, both the HoD and I have now met with various groupings and representatives of the occupants at Helen Bowden in person over the past approximately 12 months on more than one occasion, at which engagements we have been presented with both concerns and demands pertaining to the terms of the continued occupation of this property by the occupants or specified groups within the building. This has resulted in the provision of chemical toilets and solar lamps. Potable water points have been provided at this site from time to time and there have been engagements with SAPS and the City of Cape Town too.  To date only 3 of the original occupants, that we know of, have heeded our request to vacate the building.  

10. We have every intention of proceeding further to the conclusion of engagements with the remaining occupants as soon as it is reasonable to do so in the current national pandemic and consequent declaration of disaster. This will enable us to move forward in ensuring the vacation of this building, which is a pre- requisite for the construction of affordable social housing, at scale, on this site, as soon as reasonably possible.

Woodstock

(a) The date of determination of the use of Woodstock Hospital for mixed housing

11.       While it is difficult to provide a definitive  answer to Member Dugmore on this  aspect too due to the ambiguity that is  inherent in the meaning attributable to the word “determine” ,  I can confirm that an intention to utilise this site for social housing was  made public by the City of Cape Town, via its then City's Mayoral Committee Member for  Transport and Urban Development, Brett Herron,  on 13 September 2017 when he made public statements pertaining to the City’s future plans for various inner City housing projects, including one proposed for this site.

12        At the time this announcement was made the Woodstock Hospital site was still owned by the Provincial Government and it may be thought by some that his announcement was somewhat premature as an agreement on the transfer of the erf by us to the City had yet to be concluded at that time.

13.       This notwithstanding, transfer of ownership to the City has now taken place. However, as you know that property too was invaded with the encouragement of RTC on a similar basis to that which is set out above pertaining to Helen Bowden, and any plans for the redevelopment thereof to social housing by the City will now need to take the effect of that invasion into account.

(b)  Steps take to negotiate with the occupants of Woodstock Hospital to date.

14.       The Western Cape Government has not negotiated with the occupants of Woodstock hospital to date. Prior to the transfer of the ownership of the property having been formally effected in the deeds office a power of attorney was provided to the City of Cape Town to manage the site so as to enable it to better initiate the access and planning that is required to proceed with a housing development thereon in due course.

15.       Member Dugmore is accordingly directed to the City of Cape Town for any information required as regards engagements with the current occupants at this site.